Omiss Net Statistics

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does add useful context by stating the 52-week time window and the aggregate categories returned, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or how the two parameter dimensions affect output volume.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the output components without filler. The enumeration is efficient, though the wrapping and list style are slightly dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it correctly omits them. But with no annotations and no usage guidance or behavioral constraints, an agent lacks routing and safety context that the description alone would need to supply.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (top and state) are already fully documented with defaults and constraints, making 3 the baseline. The description references the concepts behind them (leaderboards for top, per-band last net for state) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OMISS net statistics') and enumerates the returned aggregates: nets per band, last net per band, and leaderboards. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like omiss_net_schedule or omiss_nets_on_air.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as omiss_nets_on_air or omiss_net_schedule, both of which could plausibly answer similar questions about nets. Usage is only implied by the content of the returned statistics.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.